Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia) | Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 |
The Act covers the protection of fauna, the taking of protected species, licence requirements and possible opportunities, the authority of wildlife officers, crown lands. The Department of Environment and Conservation is the primary agency responsible for conserving this biodiversity. This Act provides for the conservation and protection of wildlife. |
Statute | |
| Lacy v. U.S. | 278 F. App'x 616 (6th Cir. 2008) | 2008 WL 2178099 (6th Cir.) |
The owner of a horse tried to enter his horse into the 64th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration. Upon closer inspection of the horse, experts determined the horse was "sore," meaning the horse had an injury to or sensitization of its legs that induced a high stepping gait for which Tennessee Walkers are known. While the horse's owner contended that the soreness occurred as a result of the West Nile Virus, he was eventually convicted with a violation of the Horse Protection Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1831). This Court affirmed Lacy's conviction, finding that that substantial evidence supported the JO's conclusion that Lacy failed to rebut the statutory presumption of soreness. |
Case |
| ME - Research - § 1500-M. Sale or offer for sale of cosmetics tested on animals | 10 M.R.S.A. § 1500-M | ME ST T. 10 § 1500-M | This Maine law, enacted in 2021, provides that a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in the State a cosmetic if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer on or after November 1, 2021. A "cosmetic" is defined as "[a]n article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, introduced into or otherwise applied to the human body or any part of the body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness or altering the appearance," excluding soap. Exemptions include non-US based cosmetics with evidence that the product was not derived from testing, products or ingredients regulated under the FDA, and those products where there is nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency. | Statute |
| Augusta University President Keel Response | This document contains the response of Dr. Brooks Keel to the Faculty Grievance Hearing Panel's findings concerning the laboratory monkey death at Augusta University. | Policy | ||
| Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc. v. Lira | 447 S.W.3d 365 (Tex. App. 2014), reh'g overruled (Oct. 16, 2014) | 2014 WL 4199165 (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2014) | A German Shepherd dog owned by the appellees escaped through an open garage door of the appellees' home. Animal control impounded the dog for violations of city ordinances. When the appellees did not redeem the dog, instead of being euthanized, animal control turned the dog over to a rescue society for adoption. The dog was then sterilized and micro chipped. After learning what happened, appellees made a request to transfer the dog to them. When they were refused, the appellees filed suit. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellees on their conversion cause of action and their requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, which ordered appellant to turn the dog over to the appellees. On appeal, the court held that since the appellees did not redeem the dog in compliance with city ordinances, they did not have an entitlement to the dog, which was required to establish a conversion claim. Further, since the rescue organization was a recognized city rescue partner, animal control could lawfully transfer the dog to the rescue organization. The court also held the ordinance setting forth an additional 30-day redemption period did not apply to owners. The appeals court therefore reversed the judgment of the trial court, rendered judgment that appellees take nothing, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including an appropriate order restoring possession of the dog to appellant. | Case |
| AL - Ordinances - Section 11-3A-2. Powers for Public Welfare, Health, and Safety; Authorization; Scope. | Ala. Code 1975 § 11-3A-2 | AL ST § 11-3A-2 | This statute authorizes each county commission to enact ordinances for the control of animals and animal nuisances. | Statute |
| Mary Grace Long, plaintiff v. Miles R. Lewis and Darnell Webb, defendants |
This King County, Washington case concerns the appropriate measure of damages for the loss of plaintiff's cat. The court granted plaintiff's motion, finding that damages can include intrinsic value and loss of use. While "loss of companionship" may be the subject of testimony and argument, the court stated that it may not be a "line item" measure of damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Portillo v. Aiassa | 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 (1994) |
In this California case, the plaintiff delivered beer to Race Street Liquors. As he was leaving the store, he was attacked by a German shepherd owned by the tenant. The jury found appellant-landlord did not have actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities prior to renewing the commercial lease. However, the jury found that he would have learned of the dog's dangerous propensities if he had exercised reasonable care in the inspection of his property and that he was negligent in failing to eliminate this dangerous condition. |
Case |